Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Hypocrisy of pro-lifers being anti-LGBTQIA

Opinion

Hypocrisy of pro-lifers being anti-LGBTQIA
Getty Images

Steve Corbin is Professor Emeritus of Marketing at the University of Northern Iowa.

The prefix “pro-“ means to support a cause. The noun “life” is defined as an organism composed of cells that can grow, learn and respond to stimuli preceding death. It stands to reason that a pro-lifer is a radical proponent that from cell development until death -- everyone -- is supported. Everyone!


Most right-wing evangelicals and conservative Catholics proudly boast of being pro-life. MAGA Republican die-hards fondly recall a January 2020 March for Life rally where Donald Trump thanked participants for “making America the pro-family, pro-life nation.”

Simply stated, you cannot be pro-life unless you also support the 7.2 percent of babies who grow up to be LGBTQIA and – by the way – are living under the same canopy of heaven and with God’s divine grace.

LGBTQIA is an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer and/or questioning, intersex, asexual/aromantic/agender. One out of every 13 people you meet could be LGBTQIA (Gallup, Feb. 2023). Medical research is replete with evidence that 1.7 percent of human births are intersex (Journal of Sex Research), whereby the genitalia cannot be classified as female (XX chromosomes) or male (XY chromosomes). The Novo Nordisk Foundation reveals intersex children and their parents are not aware of the chromosome gene mutation until the child reaches puberty.

The LGBTQIA population breaks down – per Gallup research -- as follows:

1) 20.8 percent of Gen Z (age 20-26), 2) 10.5 percent of Millennials (age 27-42), 3) 4.2 percent of Gen Z (age 43-58), 4) 2.6 percent of Baby Boomers (age 59-77) and 5) 0.8 percent of Traditionalists (78 and older).

Seventy-nine percent of Americans want to protect LGBTQIA rights. Deniers of the LGBTQIA population probably don’t know – or if they do know shame on them -- repercussions of their “anti-“ stance. According to a 2021 survey by the Trevor Project, over 50 percent of transgender and non-binary kids have considered suicide and 93 percent say they worry about state laws denying transgender people access to gender-affirming medical care.

Research conducted by Child Trends revealed a statistically significant increase in mental health crisis text lines when anti-LGBTQIA legislation bills are introduced. LGBTQIA teens are five times more likely to make an attempt on their life than their straight peers. Negative actions and attitudes against LGBTQIA teenagers can have serious, life-altering consequences. This data should be a wakeup call for pro-lifers, especially if they value life and disdain suicide and mental health issues.

In October of 2018, Mr. Trump sought to reclassify people into an “unchangeable” category of male or female, which completely denies the existence of transgender and intersex people; a clear violation of human rights. I presume pro-lifers value human rights.

Organizations behind the anti-LGBTQIA legislation that’s been introduced in over 42 states include the conservative legal powerhouse Alliance Defending Freedom, the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation and the Christian nationalist (who despise all other religions and are anti-Semitic) lobby group Family Policy Alliance.

When 79 percent of Americans who support LGBTQIA rights witness evangelical parishioners and houses of worship tout anti-LGBTQIA beliefs, might this be one reason behind the decline of religious affiliation and church attendance?

Mayors, city council and school board members plus county, state and federal elected officials who took an oath of office to represent all citizens and are anti-LGBTQIA have betrayed the public’s trust and society’s soul. We the People – as per the Constitution -- should do our utmost to rid prejudice-laden politicians from serving unless they can represent 100 percent of their respective citizenry.

Pro-life citizens who are anti-LGBTQIA should seriously reflect on what Nelson Mandella – who devoted his life to the service of humanity -- once said, “there can be no keener revelation of a society’s soul than the way in which it treats its children.”


Read More

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Close-up of sign reading 'Immigrants Make America Great' at a Baltimore rally.

Trump’s Anti-Latino Racism is a Major Liability for Democracy

Donald Trump’s second administration has fully clarified Latinos’ racial position in America: our ethnic group’s labor, culture, and aspirations are too much for his supporters to stomach. The Latino presence in America triggers too many uneasy questions (are they White?), too many doubts (are they really American?), and too much resentment (why are they doing better than me?).

Trump’s targeted deportations of undocumented Latinos, unwarranted arrests of Latino citizens, and heightened ICE presence in Latino neighborhoods address these worries by lumping Latinos with Black people. Simply put, we have become yet another visible population that America socially stigmatizes, economically exploits, and politically terrorizes because aggrieved White adults want to preserve their rank as our nation’s premier racial group. The cumulative impacts are serious: just yesterday, an international panel of investigators on human rights and racism, backed by the U.N., found that such actions have resulted in “grave human rights violations.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules
A close up of a window with a sticker on it
Photo by Zach Wear on Unsplash

Just the Facts: The SAVE Act and the Future of Voter ID Rules

Last week, I wrote a column in the Fulcrum entitled “Just the Facts: Voter ID, States’ Powers, and Federal Limits.” The facts presented in that writing made it clear that the U.S. Constitution does not require voter ID and left almost all election administration—including voter qualifications—to the states. However, over time, constitutional amendments and federal statutes have restricted states’ ability to impose discriminatory voting rules, but they have never mandated voter ID.

The SAVE America Act

The national debate over voter ID has entered a new phase with the introduction of the SAVE America Act, the most sweeping federal voter‑identification and citizenship‑documentation proposal in modern history. For more than two centuries, voter eligibility rules—ID included—have been primarily a matter of state authority, bounded by constitutional protections against discrimination. The SAVE America Act would shift that balance by imposing federal requirements for both photo identification and documentary proof of citizenship in federal elections.

Keep ReadingShow less
Posters are displayed next to Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) as he speaks at a news conference to unveil the Take It Down Act to protect victims against non-consensual intimate image abuse, on Capitol Hill on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC.

A lawsuit against xAI over AI-generated deepfakes targeting teenage girls exposes a growing crisis in schools. As laws struggle to keep up, this story explores AI accountability, teen safety, and what educators and parents must do now.

Getty Images, Andrew Harnik

Deepfakes: The New Face of Cyberbullying and Why Parents, Schools, and Lawmakers Must Act

As a former teacher who worked in a high school when Snapchat was born, I witnessed the birth of sexting and its impact on teens. I recall asking a parent whether he was checking his daughter’s phone for inappropriate messages. His response was, “sometimes you just don’t want to know.” But the federal lawsuit filed last week against Elon Musk's xAI has put a national spotlight on AI-generated deepfakes and the teenage girls they target. Parents and teachers can’t ignore the crisis inside our schools.

AI Companies Built the Tool. The Grok Lawsuit Says They Own the Damage.

Whether the theory of French prosecutors–that Elon Musk deliberately allowed the sexualized image controversy to grow so that it would drive up activity on the platform and boost the company’s valuation–is true or not, when a company makes the decision to build a tool and knows that it can be weaponized but chooses to release it anyway, they are making a risk-based decision believing that they can act without consequence. The Grok lawsuit could make these types of business decisions much more costly.

Keep ReadingShow less